Case Detail
Case Title | EARLE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2016cv00629 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-04-04 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2016-11-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | VERNON NORMAN EARLE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Vernon Earle, a prisoner convicted of murder, submitted a FOIA request to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for the tax number of the grand jury in the District of Columbia that indicted him. The agency told Earle that grand jury materials were exempt under Exemption 3 (other statutes). Earle filed an appeal. The Office of Information Policy upheld the agency's decision, indicating that no record of the grand jury's tax number had been found. Earle then filed suit. Complaint issues: Adequacy - Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled she does not have jurisdiction over prisoner Vernon Earle's FOIA suit because Earle failed to state a claim for relief. Earle sent a request to EOUSA for the tax number for the D.C. grand jury that indicted him in 1986. After being told by the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. that D.C. grand juries did not have tax numbers, EOUSA also queried the Office of Information Policy as to the existence of such numbers. Based on research by an attorney-advisor at OIP, the agency concluded tax numbers did not exist and denied the request on that basis. OIP affirmed the denial and Earle filed suit, claiming that a prisoner who was considered a jailhouse lawyer had told him that all grand juries were required to have tax numbers. Jackson agreed with the agency that the records did not exist. She noted that "here, defendants have submitted a declaration amply demonstrating that a search would be futile because the documents in question do not exist. [The agency attorney's] conclusion is based on his personal knowledge, as well as information provided by other knowledgeable officials. His own knowledge and experience, coupled with what he learned from each of his inquiries, demonstrates a familiarity with whether the information sought could be retrieved through a search of agency records." Balancing the agency's declaration against Earle's allegations, Jackson observed that "plaintiff supplies no facts that would indicate that the source of this information has any personal knowledge of the procedures he was describing, and a statement that lacks any indicia of reliability and is pure speculation does not undermine defendants' proof here."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|